Author
Topic: ITGT and GTS classes -Is it time for a change (Read 37922 times)

Tachyon

Quite a few years ago - the competitors asked to change the classification of cars. The reason was because we had a very successful MP series ending it's life cycle and Professional Spec series cars - Players Camaros/Firebirds, Rothman's Porsche Turbo cup cars and the Honda Michelin Challenge Series cars had no classifications to allow them to race. The 2nd reason was to concentrate the number of classes and to encourage a more competitive competition amongst similar lap time cars. A rules committee was created and it was decided 3 GT (race cars - stripe down production cars or purpose built race with tube frames and fuel cells, etc - some wanted to be eligible for SCCA races and potential SCCA runoff eligibility) and classes for cars that could basically be driven to the track -- the Improved Touring Classes. - IT

3 classes - in IT and 3 in GT - a total of 6 classes

It became apparent there were a few odd ball cars that did not fit into the 6 desired classes and Sue Wilson/Timing and scoring needed a symbol or class to hang a label....the GTS class and the ITGT class were created only for timing and scoring purposes. We all agreed no trophies and no recognition for these odd ball non-conforming classes. As we all know these classes are now recognised and trophies are awarded.

Is it time to reduce the classes once again???.....see a more one on one competition. We all watched the GT race on Sept 13 - Only 4 classes....great racing....excellent competition.

Can we design a classification system that once again is competitive.....Presently the ITGT class sees cars running 1:25 lap times or 1:38 lap times....If some one brought out a street legal Porsche GT3 or a new Corvette ZRI with proper safety gear - they would be in ITGT at a possible 1:17 to 1:19 times.

Is it possible to create a new set of classifications with a mixture of GT cars and IT with similar laps times?

lotiguy

how would it affect the current cars around?Myself I have a project in the works for winter that would only fall in GTS.It would be very unfortunate to loose cars V.S growing road racing as much as possible.

Gord LeachRegina Saskatchewan

Logged

September 29, 2009, 02:37:51 PM

Reply #2

Domo

How about having ITGT 1, ITGT 2 and ITGT 3 and the same for GTS. I think there is more than enough cars and interest to make this happen. I cannot take credit for this idea it was superdave's I've just beat him to the computer.

Logged

September 29, 2009, 02:53:10 PM

Reply #3

irmechanic

Domo, Gary is suggesting trying to reduce the number of classes - I'm sure we could all go out there and run in a class by ourselves but there is no fun in that. You might find someone to play with but the end result is that they are not in the same class so why put the effort out. I find that I race harder when it counts - but then I don't like being a "Moving Pylon" out there, and we have all encountered those!

Logged

September 29, 2009, 03:01:51 PM

Reply #4

Tachyon

That's what is frustrating. Why are competitors building cars to not fit in a class? It seems many are building only to fit into a class that was created to catch the fallout ...ITGT and GTS were a timing and scoring label not really a class...where a ZRI will compete against a Kia....we all know who the winner is or should be.

If we're building cars to complete a lap at specific time, then lets create classes where lap times determine your class; not who can throw the greatest amount of money or technology or creativeness at a class that has no limits....or put GTS and ITGT together.....that maybe a better fit....all the non-class cars run together....

We see GT3 cars running similar times to a ITGT or an ITI car then why not have them compete for the same "red ribbon" at the end of day.

If you exceed your class's time by 2.0 or 2.5% you're bumped to the next class.....

The reason for the IT class was to support a 20 year old collection of cars....it's time to move forward.

Logged

September 29, 2009, 03:35:06 PM

Reply #5

lotiguy

That's what is frustrating. Why are competitors building cars to not fit in a class?

Freedom of Espression........I guess.Myself I'm buiding something unique that has no "proper" home unless it had 6-700lbs of lead thrown at it.(GT Rules of factoring)Think of all the open wheel classes, FV FF,FC,FL(catch all)My opinion is we need a catch all however it applies.Eliminating classes/entrants isn't a good idea.

streetywise guy

"Is it time to reduce the classes once again???.....see a more one on one competition. We all watched the GT race on Sept 13 - Only 4 classes....great racing....excellent competition."

I watched the GT race from group 3, when all the other cars in my IT2 class were in group 4. The winners of the four groups were, at least to a certain extent, random. My car is prepped to the highest level I can afford, for two reasons: I am a professional automotive technician and shop owner, and I have a pretty good idea of how stuff works, and secondly, and probably more important, I have a 600 km tow to get to the nearest racetrack to my home. I am not going to show up with an underprepped car that does not have a chance of winning.

My reward for this level of prep and effort is a championship. Were we to base the groups off a random grouping based on raw lap times, the winner of each group would be partly based on how many cars happened to show up that day. You would have a race driver rewarded for lucky guesses?

I do not have an answer for your ITGT question, but does it really require an answer? It costs a couple of extra spots on the database, and a couple more trophies at the end of the year. Options include SCCA, which has has ITR and ITS. NASA uses a type of prep point system to move cars up the ladder.

IT 1-2-3 are ok as is. Choose the right car for your track and prep it to the limit of the rules and you will be competitive.

As to Gords frankenstein-like creatures, trust me , you ain't gonna stop him. ITGT is the perfect home for him, cause I am not sure if he's ever opened a rule book, let alone read one. ;<)

Logged

September 29, 2009, 09:42:28 PM

Reply #7

Super70Dave

Another thought as to the IT field would be to modify the current IT1-3 rules to open the classes back up to allow some cars back in that are now in IT-GT. This may be more of a nightmare but would allow the class sizes to grow more. It would definietly be a policing nightmare but we self police anyway. The ITCS would then have to be updated accordingly.

Really those of us in IT-GT, Chose to be there, we made modifications to our cars knowin full well we would be in ITGT and would or would not be competitive.

As far as GTS goes we need a place for unlimted cars to go.

SuperDave

Logged

September 29, 2009, 10:18:06 PM

Reply #8

10cc

Obviously, I have to say something, as I usually mouth off about everything.

My point is that people should read the rule book, and build cars that fit the rules, and that we, the organizers, should not be making up classes for people who don't read the rules. The rules are the same for everyone, so there can't be any realistic complaint that anyone is being left out. Racing is a rule based process.

I am in a very restrictive class, a "spec" class, with very limited, and specific mods allowed. Yes, there are a lot of things I could do to the car to make it go faster, but, as it is, we all follow the rules...for the most part, and we have a lot of fun racing in a good sized class, while learning the little tiny, incremental things that are legal, and that we can do.

I agree that we need to limit the number of classes, I agree that the four classes in the GT race are fairly cool, but I don't think we need to get rid of any classes yet, and certainly don't need any new ones.

If you want to go into ITGT, or GTS, fine, but you are in a very broadbased group, and it'll probably cost $$$ to win.

Meanwhile, back at the cheap end of the stick, CC cars are simple to prepare, and as you have all seen, we are going faster every year, with very little added cost.

Logged

September 30, 2009, 08:57:08 AM

Reply #9

Tachyon

There are a number of reasons why this subject should be talked about.

Over the last couple of years we have all seen great races amongst drivers. You know the ones where they are bumper to bumper, freight train group of cars with some swapping positions every single lap. This is what spectators like me love to watch and to live vicariously witnessing the exceptional skill sets of these competitors. Great stuff!

However, there were a few times this year where something very different stood out. Those four to 6 car freight trains lap after lap were with cars from 4 different classes....So why are they racing so hard? Just being racers?...competitive people? Fine!

However, a very respected driver came up to me and asked...."What's with %^&*( no name here), he was being so aggressive and taking huge risks to pass me when we're not even in the same class. " He could have caused both of us to lose Class championship points and the championship."

He went on to say it's fun to mix it up....but they started to taker greater risks....."what is the point when we're not in the same class! I'm racing at 110% and taking huge calculated risks against my class competitors and these 3 other non-class competitors are threatening our survival. What's the point"

Point taken from this long time, very respected driver!

Later in the summer this very topic was brought to my attention a number of times.

This year we saw far more bumper to bumper racing amongst competitors, most often in different classes. Just look over the results and lap times.

The question is ---- How do we create a fair and equitable system? Where you are really racing with a fellow class mate??

Logged

September 30, 2009, 09:12:48 AM

Reply #10

shross

This doesn't address the issue at hand so please forgive the hijack of this thread. Open wheel is now the biggest class on the grid. We had 13 cars and, if everyone would have come out, we would have been at 18. You want to have fun? You want to race closely? Spend less than $15,000 and you get a race ready rocket that will propel you around the track at 1:20 or less.

vintagebmw

So I guess I have to ask why would we recognize ITGT and GTS as a trophy class?

Seems to me the whole point was to allow a place where people could race their nonconforming cars without any sanctioned prize or recognition. If we continue to dilute the rules why would anyone follow them (ie structured classes)?

I don't like the idea of grouping based on time, but I raced in a class where the cars were very close in terms of lap times (GT3) and I had an absolute ball racing this year. That being said Stu G (ITGT) got caught in the mix a few times racing with us, as did Lance H. and Gary C. and guess what I had a blast racing with them too.

I think the GT and IT rules are well defined and fairly ubiquitous across organizations (ICSCC, SCCA, PCA, BMWCCA, NASA etc) I would propose the following:

Adhere to the IT and GT classes. Apply a weight or class factor for nonconformist which would mean that if for whatever reason I don't conform to my class I need to carry more weight as a penalty or get bumped into the next class. My car is barely competitive in GT3 why would I want to add more weight or go into GT2?

Coming from Vintage while it is fun, it can also be extremely frustrating racing against cars that are so (Momentum VS HP) different yet run similar lap times. In vintage it is OK but I think it is fundamentally wrong to have a 1.9litre BMW racing against a 500HP challenger, just because the times are similar, same rules would apply in GT. The problem is also exacerbated at Race City as it is such a HP course. As an example many of the GT3 cars run competitive lap times against the ITGT and GT2 cars, but rest assured we would get passed every lap on the straight by those same cars.

I would be open to loosening the rules to allow more cars in, but then, many of us would end up with cars that were either ineligible at places like Spokane or uncompetitive in Calgary. Either way it will suck.

The yardstick needs to be consistent and given the fact that there will be a time (in the future) when most of us will have to travel to Spokane or Mission to race I think we should focus on getting more legitimate cars in the GT and IT ranks.

Rant OUt

Anthony1969 BMW 2002

« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 02:46:22 PM by vintagebmw »

Logged

September 30, 2009, 11:39:48 AM

Reply #13

10cc

Just a quick comment on why cars race so hard against other cars not in their class.

It is quite simple actually. If there is a CC car a couple of cars ahead of me, and an IT2 car between me and the CC car, I am going to do anything I can to get by the IT2 car, so I can get after the CC car, and improve my position. Likewise, If I am ahead of a CC car, and there is a car in a different class ahead of me, I want to get by, and stick that moving pylon between me and the CC car behind me. This to me is all part of the skill set, and the tremendous enjoyment I get from racing.

Also, some of the best racing I have had is when, for whatever reason, I have been at the back of the field, and have had the opportunity to pass 15 - 16 cars, as I fought through the pack to catch up with the CC cars....what a lot of fun !!!!!

Let's also remember, most of the time, it's not the car, it's the driver. A well driven CC car is sometimes way faster than some of the more powerful, and better set-up higher classes.....down to the driver.

This whole class issue has come up before, and I have to say that I thought this year went well....if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Logged

September 30, 2009, 12:27:09 PM

Reply #14

Tachyon

The AGM is 2 weeks away. That is the time to make changes for the next year. I agree with you 100%....If it ain't broke don't fix it. However, a few have said it needs to be replaced or repaired for the classes are long in the tooth.

My focus is safety and as long as the cars in any class meet or exceed the safety standards then competitors can compete with who ever.

With respect to the classification if the vast majority wishes the classifications to remain the way they are then so be it. From my perspective, if there are 20 cars in ITGT or 20 cars in GTS in 2010 then those that were questioning the existence or lack of rules for these classes in 2009 and they do not speak up before the AGM they really should not comment on the lack of classification rules during the 2010 season.

The only element is the overall WCMA Champion could be someone who is not in a competitive car because they bought an off the rack 2010 street legal Corvette or Viper that can now 1:17s at Race City in ITGT. No one in any other classes would have a chance to be overall champion.

The ideal scenario ( almost impossible) is to have an equal number of cars in each class, therefore every class champion could have a shot at First, second or third overall.

These next two weeks and the AGM are your soap box. WCMA has placed "soap box" for addressing any concerns about car classifications.

If no one steps up to the soap box, then let the classifications stand as they are.

There has been a suggestion that, overall Provincial and WCMA Regional Champions may only be eligible if they are competing in a definitive classes not a catch up class. Therefore the CC champion, IT1, IT2, IT3 or GTI, GT2 and GT3 champions would be eligible for the Overall Championships.

At the moment we're only talking about the 'TIN TOP" cars. The open wheel cars may wish to clarify their classifications.